How old is the universe? the earth?Are "theories
about history" scientific?Why is the universe "just
right" for life?Does a Big Bang Beginning require
a creator?How did the first life become
alive?What was the origin
of biocomplexity?Does "intelligent
design"
belong in science?

These origins questions will be described,
but will not be "answered" for you,
in different parts of this page:

A "Multiple
Views" Website We have searched the web
and have selected pages that will help you learn quickly
and
well, because you'll be reading only high-quality pages. This also
makes it easier to use the website because you won't be overwhelmed with
too many choices, so you can more easily decide what to do first and
what to do next. But our selectivity is not
censorship, and — for controversial issues, when views differ among
Christians — in
our website the range of views will be wide. Our goal is to give
you accurate information about many perspectives, so you can
be well informed while you develop your own perspective. Since
you'll see a wide range of views, our disclaimer is important: "citing
a page does not imply an endorsement by the ASA."

In the main body of all pages, each
normal link (which is not italicized) opens the new page in
a new window, so this page remains open in this window.

Age of the Universe How old is the universe
and the earth? Most
scientists think there is abundant evidence, from a wide range of fields,
indicating that
the universe and earth are billions of years old. But proponents of
young-earth theories challenge the interpretations of evidence that lead
to old-earth conclusions. They also question whether science can produce
reliable conclusions about the history of nature, so we should ask: Can any theory about the history
of nature be authentically scientific? Even though we cannot directly
observe ancient history, can we — by a logical analysis of historical
evidence, in fields like astronomy, geology, oceanography, nuclear physics,
paleontology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology — reach reliable
conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other
parts of the
universe?

Design of
the Universe? (
Design before history? ) Scientists are discovering
that many properties of the universe are "just right" for a
wide variety of life-allowing phenomena, ranging from the physics of
sunshine to the
chemistry of life. Three explanations are that there is 1) one universe
that was very intelligently designed, 2) an intelligently designed multiverse containing
an immense number of universes with variable properties, so
extremely
improbable
things (like
properties allowing life) will occur in one of these universes, or 3) a
non-designed multiverse. Is
there evidence to support any of these theories? What existed before
the beginning of our universe? And then what happened? Could
a "big
bang beginning" of the universe occur naturally, or did it require
an act of supernatural creation?

Four Types
of Intelligent Design When
scientists study a feature of nature (a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical
system,...) they can ask about its origin. Was it produced by intelligent
design, either by: • natural process because,
before history began, the universe
was cleverly designed so this would happen, or • natural
process that, during history, was supernaturally guided in a natural-appearing
way to produce the particular natural-appearing result that was desired,
orempirically detectable design-directed
action during history by a supernatural agent (•) or a
natural agent (•), which was necessary because undirected natural process
would not produce the feature? Or
was there no design of any type, as proposed by atheists, with everything
produced by undesigned-and-unguided natural process?

All theists agree that
the universe is designed and that God can guide natural process, but
there is disagreement when we ask, "Does scientific
evidence and logic indicate the occurrence of detectable design-action
during the formative history of nature?" Proponents of detectable
Intelligent Design think this did
occur occasionally — with Chemical Evolution andBiological
Evolution, which are described below, being the most common areas
for questions — while
proponents
of evolutionary
creation think
the universe was intelligently designed so natural process would be
sufficient, so there would be no need for detectable design-action
during history.

A theory of intelligent
design,
proposing a design of the universe, is examined above. The most controversial
theories of Intelligent
Design (proposing "there is detectable evidence for design-action") will
be examined in two ways, by asking questions aboutEvaluations
of Evolutions — What
scientific evidence-and-logic is claimed as support for (and against)
specific design theories?Design
in Science? — What are the arguments for (and against)
including
design in science?

Evaluations
of Evolutions (
Design in history? ) Scientists have proposed theories
of natural evolution to explain the origin of all observed features in astronomy,
geology, and biology. Are these theories sufficient to explain everything
in the history of nature? Usually, claims for intelligent design with "empirically
detectable design-action during history" are made only in biology, by
challenging theories of chemical evolution (which claim to explain the first
life) or biological evolution (to explain complex life). This area is
called evaluations of evolutions (both plural) because it lets
you explore different evaluations of different evolutions:

Astronomical
Evolution and Geological Evolution Although young-earth creationists
challenge many principles, and most conclusions, of conventional astronomy
and geology (as in "Age of The Universe" above), claims
for "design-action during history" rarely occur in these areas.

Chemical Evolution How did the first life become
alive? Can a living organism be produced by undirected natural process? Did
this occur during history? Do scientists have justifiable confidence
in current theories for a natural origin of life? What are their
hopes for future theories?

Biological Evolution Why do most scientists think there
is abundant evidence that
evolution has occurred? If "evolution" is an imprecise
word with many possible meanings, what are the scientific and educational
benefits of using precise definitions? What are the basic principles
of modern evolutionary theories? Could natural evolution produce
all of the biodiversity and biocomplexity we observe, in the time that
was available? Does "irreducible complexity" exist, and
could it be produced by evolution?

Design in
Science? ( The
Nature of Science ) Can four
types of design — a design of nature, design-directed
guidance, and design-directed action (supernatural or natural) — be
detected and evaluated using the methods of science, in principle and in
practice? Many theories about design-directed
action (involving bird nests, faces on Mt Rushmore,
murder investigations,...) are evaluated based on their scientific merit,
using
evidence and logic, but
other design theories are criticized for "not being scientific." Why? What
are the arguments for and against including the controversial design theories
in science? If a design theory does not try to explain the details of
design (the how, who, and why), is this a serious scientific weakness? What
are the
similarities
and differences between theories
of design and creation? If
it seems unlikely that a feature was produced by non-design (by undirected natural
process), is it logical to conclude that this feature probably was the result
of design, or is this an illogical argument based on
our temporary ignorance? In science, is proof required or is plausibility
sufficient? In historical science, what are the similarities and differences
between a mechanistic
theory
and
an agency theory? Can a theory of design
be scientific? In our search for truth about nature,
what are
the logical and
practical advantages of various strategies? While doing science, should
a scientist adopt a rigid methodological naturalism by assuming-and-concluding
that
everything
in
history
has
occurred
by natural
process, or a testable methodological naturalism? What is science? What are the
goals of science, and what methods will be most effective in helping us reach
these goals? How do scientists think and behave, individually and in their
communities? How should we define science and non-science, what are their
relationships, and in what ways does each (or should
each)
influence
the
other? What are the limits for what can claim to be science, and for what
science can claim to explain?